Posted on 03/18/2009 7:31:56 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Canada's science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution.
“I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,” Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.
A funding crunch, exacerbated by cuts in the January budget, has left many senior researchers across the county scrambling to find the money to continue their experiments.
Some have expressed concern that Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., is suspicious of science, perhaps because he is a creationist.
When asked about those rumours, Mr. Goodyear said such conversations are not worth having.
Brian Alters, founder and director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University in Montreal, was shocked by the minister's comments
“It is the same as asking the gentleman, ‘Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds,” said Dr. Alters. “Or gravity, or plate tectonics, or that the Earth goes around the sun.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
peeeng!
Some have expressed concern that Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., is suspicious of science, perhaps because he is a creationist.In this sentence she is using a tactic I call subrhetoric. It's extremely common.
Exactly. Said Minister should lose his job.
” I am a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,””
Funny. Saul of Tarsus didn’t mind explaining his beliefs to anybody who would listen.
What’s ironic is that “evolution” is of such little importance to actual science. “Science” would proceed entirely apace, even were evolution to disappear as a philosophical concept completely.
This propaganda about "being opposed to science" is getting so old. Day after day there are threads right here on FR showing how science demonstrates evolutionary mechanisms are inadequate to explain most features of life. Yesterday's thread on folding of soft strata was a good case in point, as Darwinist after Darwinist avoided even attempting to refute this evidence for a young earth.
Sorry, but no. Goodyear should be graded on the merit of his actual job performance.
“The religious nuts...”
Oh, you must mean the young Earthers.
Yes. I call this way of talking subrhetoric. It is the daily bread of atheists and Darwinians.
Oh, you must mean the young Earthers
I became a Christian because I became convinced of a young earth. I became convinced of a young earth because of the scientific evidence and the fact that the creation model explained it far better than old-earth models. Cf. the book Pursuaded by the Evidence, ed. by Doug Sharp and Dr. Jerry Bergman.
Instead of attempting science apologetics, Darwinists today rely almost exclusively on government, media and academic control and philosophical/religious arguments. Just keep your eyes open and you will see it all around you. They've lost their case and it is apparent to all but themselves.
Evasion of a basic cornerstone of science = "F"
Thanks to ECO for finding this one!
Laugh of the day:
“basic cornerstone of science”
Sorry, but no. Goodyear should be graded on the merit of his actual job performance.
If the fundamental principle of modern biology is off limits for discussion by the Minister of Science how can he do his job? How about discussions of the expansion of the Universe (astronomy), the age of the earth (geology), the germ theory of disease (medicine) and other scientific matters? These are all religiously controversial as well. What isn't off limits?
True, it's only the basic cornerstone of biology. Doesn't have much to do with astronomy, I guess.
Looks like another example proving Ben Stein’s case. The “tolerant” totalitarians are at it again! Bob
Yep, no biological discoveries, no advances in biology, and no study of living organisms could ever occur without the “basic cornerstone” of assuming that man evolved from primordial goo.
I have a better question - Can you demonstrate any actual incompetence in the performance of his functions as “science minister”?
No, what it means is that biology is just a bunch of random facts otherwise. Evolution is the framework that makes it all make sense.
Thinking evolution is a basic cornerstone of science = "F", and a D-hall.
Yes, the fact that the Minister of Science says that important scientific questions are off limits for discussion. It's the antithesis of what science stands for.
Yes, the ever present "Some" ...
C'mon, no one is suspicious of science ('Having knowledge'). Suspicious about speculations and extrapolations presented as fact - sure...
That's a dishonest assertion, because he didn't say that. He said that his personal views are off-limits for discussion, which is his business, not yours, mine, or anyone elses.
Frankly, what we see here is some budget tightening by Harper's conservative government. As a result of the belt-tightening, some of the state funded welfare-scientists are losing some funding that they thought they were entitled to, and are trying to find a way to pressure goodyear into restoring the funding, probably specifically to their pet areas of research (which we're not told what these are, they may very well have nothing to do with biology, much less "evolution").
Sorry, but welfare queens, even when they wear white lab coats, don't get any sympathy from me.
It's the antithesis of what science stands for.
Oh really? And what is it that you think science "stands for"? Science is a methodology, not a social justice flavour of the day.
That’s like accusing someone who expresses concern over the misuse and fraud in the welfare system of “hating poor kids”.
Canada's science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution.
It's not just about his personal belief, it's about how Canadian taxpayer money will be spent. Now, we can argue about whether there should be such a job as Minister of Science. Frankly, I'm not comfortable with government getting too involved in scientific matters, there's too much risk of politicization. But given that such a job does exist he can't merely hide behind a shield of privacy when public funds are at stake.
[[Minister won’t confirm belief in evolution]]
Translation: Minister won’t sacrifice a virgin at the alter of Darwin, therefore, the hyena’s of hell will rip him apart with ad hominem attacks every chance they get. They’ll dumpy ihm in the gutter, spit on him, and declare him unfit simpyl because he chooses not to beleive the a priori assumptions that defy the very scientific principles of life, biology, chemistry, and natural laws. Be cause the good minister refuses to bleet the mantra of Macroevolution, he’ll be thrown to hte wolves.
Yay ‘science’
[[This propaganda about “being opposed to science” is getting so old.]]
Yup- in an effort to belittle and malign htose hwo are sceptical of the wild assumptions about common descent, the bloviating briggade of the church of Darwin try to make it out that we’re ‘rejecting science’ altogether- it’s nothign but a silly immature ad hominem attack that can’t focus on the actual issues being discussed, and must try to divert attention away from the fact that those maligning Creationists don’t have any ammo with wwhich to defend their positions with:
“p(A) = “I am skeptical of Darwinism.”
A = “Darwinism”
Since here A = “Darwinism”, we must substitute something sensible to acheive the contrast, so choose A’ = “science”, and make some minor modifications to p,
p’(A’) = “Oh, so you are skeptical of science. You sound like a
Luddite. Why do you hate science?”
That ECG- This perfectly describes the silly tactics of a good majority of Macroevos on this site- Apparently, Creationists and ID proponents ‘oppose science’ because we aren’t willing to unquestioningly accept biological impossibilities. Evidently, we’re ‘psuedoscientists’ because we dare question the validity of the claims that defy scientific principles.
So they ask this nut job with a science post about a scientific subject (evolution) and he responds by talking about his religion?
What a whack job nut ball.
nope- they asked him about a RELIGIOUS subject (Macroevolution), and he responded by talking about his own preferred Religious belief- plain and simple.
Chiropractors are to Science...
As a back massage is to a cure for cancer.
Well, I didn't want to bring that part up but as long as you mentioned it, well, yeah.
Evolution is not a religious subject, any more than geology or astrophysics is.
‘Nature did it’ isn’t exactly science- especially when you CAN’T show HOW ‘Nature did it’
Year by year we learn more and more, and the blanks get filled in.
[[Year by year we learn more and more, and the blanks get filled in.]]
Really? Mind givign examples of htese ‘blanks’ being filled in? Because it’s been 150 years of Darwinism, and we STILL haven’t the foggiest idea how ‘nature did it’- just a bunch of unsupported assumptions about past events for which we haven’t a clue. No- I’m sorry- they are no closer today to explaining how nature could have seriously violated biological, chemical, natural, and mathematical laws. Th4ey do however have more elaborate, yet still blank filled hypothesis’- but no- no solid scientific evidence.
The scientific evidence is voluminous and growing. The fossil record is much more complete than it was a few decades ago. For example, the sequence of evolutionary steps which led from the return of land animals to the sea to the modern whale is quite well understood now, unlike a couple of decades ago. Whole new avenues of research have opened up in the past few decades. For example, the molecular biology revolution now allows scientists to trace the evolution of specific traits such as color vision and olfaction at the molecular level across species. These are just a couple of examples, numerous books are filled with more.
Thanks for the ping. I’m sure this will cause quite a stir in Canada and on FR.
So you think a person’s religious beliefs should be scrutinized and laid bare as a qualification of public service?
Also, Dr. Alters analogy is not true. Believing the world is flat and believing in creation are not akin and there’s not controversy in her comparisons, with creation, there is controversy.
Science would be set free if they dropped evo.
On the contrary, he was asked for his views on a scientific topic. The Minister of Science, who (I understand) has a role in the allocation of funding for science research should be accountable to the public for the conduct of his job and this includes answering questions on scientific matters.
That’s interesting.
I smell BULL! Replace Science with Secular Humanism and you’ve got it right. I didn’t think that was a qualification for America Jr’s Science Minister.
[[The scientific evidence is voluminous and growing.]]
You know- I keep hearing htat- but NEVEr see any evidence to support it- ALL I find when I research the claim are charts that link wholly dissimilar species kinds and which claim they are descended from each other- but NO evidence exists to show htis- infact, the evidence which DOES exist show hte two wholly dissimilar species coudl NOT be related- but hte claims persist-
I asked for evidence NOT opinions-
[[the molecular biology revolution now allows scientists to trace the evolution of specific traits such as color vision and olfaction at the molecular level across species. ]]
Swell- you’ve just described COMMON DESIGN.
[[These are just a couple of examples, numerous books are filled with more.]]
Yep- I’m surem ore books are filled with claims such as kangaroos are related to Carrots or some such nonsense- but let’s not pretend OPINIONS are solid scientific fact or evidences- because they are not. There are VAST caverns and gaps between the ‘land dwelling species’ and hte sea dwellers for which science has NO explanation, yet that apparently doesn’t stop them from claiming the two species are commonly descended one from another- Swell- we have a reponerance of opinions- a priori opinions that just assume everythign has a common anscestor- but I’m afraid hte very biology you pointed to works against htose claims- not for them- You’re welcome to your opinion about hte OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS of scientists- but to claim they amount to hard science is just willful blindenss o nthe issue I’m afraid. It is NOT hard science, it is a religious belief that beleives ‘nature did it’ but they just aren’t sure how!
The more you explain your argument, the worse it sounds. Go on.
[[On the contrary, he was asked for his views on a scientific topic.]]
No- once again, he was asked where he stands on the religious beleif in Macroevolution- Shoudsl he be disqualified because He doesn’t hold to hte religious beleif of Macroevolution? They didn’t ask him scientific quesitons, they asked him what he beleives about the a priori assunmption that man evolved from goo-
If you claim that evidence is all just opinion than everything is opinion. The reality is that the evidence is enormous and growing. I could give you references if you’d like but you’d probably claim that they’re just opinion as well.
I love the way "unstubstituion" gets substituted for "substitution".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.